Posts tagged ‘Bill O’Reilly’

Last summer, Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly came to believe that his wife was romantically involved with another man. Not just any man, but a police detective in the Long Island community they call home. So O’Reilly did what any concerned husband would do: He pulled strings to get the police department’s internal affairs unit to investigate one of their own for messing with the wrong man’s lady.

(…)

Roger Ailes—treating his local police department like a private security force and trying to damage one cop’s career for the sin of crossing Bill O’Reilly.

The article goes on with the details from the Nassau County Police Department. Just like Rush Limbaugh and his drug problem as well as Donald Trump and his spoiled treatment on the part of his dad (as he then goes on to question Barack Obama’s education credentials and if he is worthy to be out POTUS), we now have O’Reilly who talks big talk, calls people pin heads, and does his best to be the conservative champ in terms of moral righteousness. I wonder how he will spin this on his show. Victimization possibly?

These questions, which have been used in a number of studies of racial attitudes, asked respondents to agree or disagree with statements regarding the condition of African Americans in the United States including whether a legacy of racism and discrimination has made it difficult for blacks to get ahead, whether blacks have gotten less than they deserve in the United States, whether blacks would be as well off as whites if they tried harder and whether blacks should be able to overcome prejudice the same way other minority groups did, without any special favors.

Not coincidentally, one can arrive at the “resentful” answers to these questions not only through racism, but also through conservative beliefs. One might say blacks should “try harder” out of a belief that they are lazy — or out of a belief that in America, hard work produces results no matter the color of one’s skin, and is preferable to government aid. One might say blacks shouldn’t get “special favors” out of a dislike for them — or out of a belief that no one should get special favors on the basis of race. These conservative beliefs may be right or wrong, but they are not inherently racist.

Robert VerBruggen makes two mistakes in his piece. One, he insinuates that hard work, no matter your skin color, produces success. That is so far from the truth it is laughable. Tim Wise has dismantled this myth several times. Also, VerBruggen concludes that there is no actual evidence to support conservatives being labeled as racists. I then ask these questions: why is your party almost always represented by whites, hostile to immigrants, represented by race-baiters (Rush Limbaugh), supportive of wealthy (a homogeneous group of whites) business owners and CEO’s over the poor (who, mostly non-white, are because years of education being withheld to them, almost always behind their white counterparts in test scores, school performance, or even the chance of being unemployed)?

These two seem more and more awkward around each other. I can almost feel the animosity they have for each other. Segments of their own shows are based on mocking the other, so it can’t be a big surprise.

John Stewart from The Daily Show was on the O’Reilly Factor. In my opinion, John had the upper hand in part one and Bill had the upper in part two. You be the judge on who wins this pointless battle over a poet (who I see as pretty tame compared to other rappers today) coming to the White House.

This reminds me of Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly – do they truly believe what they spout and support or is it all a political choice that brings them many benefits (money, for one!):

A few years later, having fathered two children with his high school math teacher (whom he had married at the age of 19), Gingrich returned to Georgia and launched his electoral career, running for Congress in 1974 and again in 1976. His incumbent opponent was John Flynt, an old-fashioned conservative Democrat best known for being on the League of Conservation Voters’ “Dirty Dozen” list of environmental reactionaries. Unlike many Georgia Republicans who sought to out-flank Dixiecrats by coming across as better-bred right-wing extremists, Gingrich ran to Flynt’s left, emphasizing environmentalist and “reform” themes, and enlisting significant support from liberal Democrats. Unfortunately for him, these were the two worst election cycles for Georgia Republicans since the 1950s (the Watergate election of 1974 and Jimmy Carter’s Georgia landslide of 1976), and he lost narrowly both times.

But then Flynt retired, just as Gingrich’s form of liberal Republicanism was falling out of fashion nationwide, in the run-up to Ronald Reagan’s election as president in 1980. When Gingrich ran for Congress again in 1978, this time against a more conventional Democrat, he reinvented himself as a fighting conservative focused on anti-tax and anti-welfare messages. He also burnished his conservative credentials by heading up a statewide group opposed to President Carter’s Panama Canal Treaty, a major right-wing (and specifically Reaganite) cause at the time. Gingrich won as a newly minted conservative, riding a conservative trend in his state and the country. It’s hard to know whether his earlier liberal persona, which seemed consistent with his private behavior and the polyglot crew of environmentalists he hung out with at West Georgia, or his later conservative incarnation was more genuine. But it is clear his turn to the right was well timed, and launched him not only into Congress but into a career as a national political celebrity.

If you don’t feel like reading all of that, this short bit sums it up:

ut the lesson of Gingrich’s early years is that he has a jeweler’s eye for a political opening and a willingness to transform himself as necessary to exploit such opportunities when they arise. This could be one of those times: Because the 2012 Republican field is exceedingly weak in ways that would benefit Gingrich, he could end up in a surprisingly good electoral position if he decides to run.

Bill O’Reilly ends a usual screed of his with a common quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin: the Lord helps those who help themselves. Ironically, that phrase is not found in the Bible. If all you read it Leviticus, Proverbs, and the epistles of Paul, you may come away with an attitude that what Jesus really stood against was laziness and unemployment insurance. Here’s the rub: that Franklin/O’Reilly quote, which I personally am tired of hearing from comfortable, privileged whites, is found in the Koran.

Andrew Sullivan annihilates Bill O’Reilly’s sermon claiming Barack Obama has gone to the far left since being elected:

He says first that in foreign policy, progressives believe that America is a “bully” and “too aggressive.” Obama, however, has retained most of Bush’s executive powers against al Qaeda (except, critically, torture), has poured more troops into Afghanistan than was ever the case under Bush, has ramped up the drone campaign in Pakistan, retained Bush’s defense secretary, stuck to Bush’s withdrawal timetable in Iraq, and embraced targeted killings of al Qaeda operatives, even US citizens. On Iran, Obama has managed to get a far more comprehensive and global set of economic sanctions against the Revolutionary Guards, and has refused to take military force off the table. Obama, moreover, went to Oslo to defend the necessity of war while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. For this record, O’Reilly says Obama represents the pursuit of “peace at pretty much any price.” There is no other description of this than a travesty of the truth.

Brett McCracken has a fine article (you should read it all here) asking what are we to believe in this dubious world of deception, lies, and tabloids that we live in:

I saw the film Catfish this weekend–a documentary about a Facebook relationship. The film observes photographer Nev Schulman during his online romance with “Megan,” who he gets to know on Facebook (along with her whole family). As the film progresses, however, Nev begins to have doubts about who Megan actually is. Is she a real person? What would happen if he tried to meet her in person?

The film (which you should see) demonstrates our contemporary longing for connection in a world that is increasingly surreal, virtual, and subject to doubt. It underscores how prone we are to trust what we feel to be real, even though experience increasingly proves our skepticism warranted. Should we believe anything anymore? What can be trusted?

We used to trust authority. Presidents, politicians, pastors… Not so much anymore. It’s hard when the media constantly feeds us stories of the scandals, dishonesty, and hypocrisy of these formerly heroic, respectable officials.

MJ and I had a relative conversation about this yesterday. We wonder if Sarah Palin truly believes that America has nothing to apologize for, if Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly actually believe all that they preach daily at the Church of Fox News, and if all the tabloids at the grocery store check-out are true, exaggerated, based on assumptions, or plain lies?

In cases such as Casey Affleck, which is the center of McCracken’s article, we assume to know that he was lying about his life (or parts of it) over the past two years. The sad part is there seems to be little fact checking in the tabloid world and main stream media. In these realms of glitter, glam, and photographs, you are guilty before you are proven innocent. Worse, there are not court rooms for you to plead your innocence. As heretical as this may sound to the media junkie or realist, are the annals and details of our president, movie stars, or odd neighbor down the street ours to know or possess?

(Image: Lindsay Lohan after one of her drug run-ins. Her picture provoked the thought: how much of what the media (or her own self) reports is real?)

Bill O’Reilly decries contemporary spin yet spins a lackluster football op-ed in an elitist (or more so a non-populist, therefore not of Fox News) direction:

We are living in a time of incredible spin and gross dishonesty in the public arena. Propagandists are everywhere and they’re spitting out so much bilge it is sometimes hard to even breathe. Football is an honest game. The toughest, smartest team usually wins. There is something pure in it.

At the end of his “praise-complain” piece, Bill finally brings into this equation the word money. Sure, he mentions that watching football is free, which is economical and involving money. But to mention absurd ticket prices in the final paragraph and to leave out the industries outrageous salaries in a piece attempting to relate the flimsy economy to foosball is sad.

As I Googled around, I came across this article. I assume that the sports industry is not hurting that much. I would have to dig even more to see a comparison between a CEO and a working level worker’s financial losses over the past few years. Richard Sandomir describes the hurting sports industry: “In the past year, five of the nine major professional sports teams in the United States that were sold or are being sold were saddled with substantial debt or operating losses. Another dozen in the four biggest leagues, which have a total of 122 teams, may soon change hands.” Even though these teams are making big bucks, they for the most part have been losing money over the past few decades.

I see Bill O’Reilly as more enjoyable to watch on the Factor, in small portions, than in writing. Bill still writes this article up in his own style: highly political and somewhat pious while unable to level with those not making millions off of their “no spin zone’ TV show.

Sarah was a guest on the O’Reilly Factor recently. Bill O’Reilly talked with her last time on BP and this time on immigration. Bill keeps the heat on.

They show video clips of Mexican citizens running over the border into America illegally (we think?). Her tone is very condescending. But the issue of her tone against those who break the law isn’t my issue. I see this message by Palin directed towards all illegal immigrants who are not all running across the border illegally, not all leeches, and not all apathetic to becoming a legal citizen of the USA. Does that tone and wide brush rhetoric line up with Christian truths found in the bible pertaining to caring for the lost, the aliens, and the homeless? James 1:27 maps this out.

Sarah Palin: We can’t make it easy for those who have chosen to break the law and be here illegally.

Bill O’Reilly: We can’t make it easy. But when they are here, we can’t starve the to death and they can’t work if they don’t have a green card. This is when it gets very, very complicated.

SP: Then we won’t complicate this anymore.

It is going to always be a complicated issue when you have 12 million people involved in this issue: 12 million diverse stories that are not the same, contrary to what the media narratives depict.
Palin ends the first segment with a railing, vitriolic few sentences summed up in “taking this country back” (such a Christian saying, hm?) and taking down Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
Below is a follow up segment on the Factor reviewing the O’Reilly/Palin segment:
From the sounds of it, her obvious base station Fox News isn’t even fully behind her.